From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,20280f498071efd3
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Software Quality in Science
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <495939c0-58e7-4362-a8c0-6d4af23c3b12@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <1198a288-b013-45a8-907f-7fe227e6294e@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
	<04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
	<wcc6366x9em.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <87fx59p725.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.133.0.8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265809105 10777 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2010 13:38:25
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=20.133.0.8;
	posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.7)
	Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9080
Date: 2010-02-10T05:38:25-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 10, 1:13=A0pm, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Robert A. Duff:
>
> >>...The net result of changing languages appears
> >> to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same,
> >> (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one
> >> deficiency, it appears to add one of its own."
>
> > That assertion requires evidence, and I don't see it here!
>
> (Hatton 1997) is here: <http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_97b.html>
> For Ada, it cites Compton & Withrow, "Improving Productivity: Using
> Metrics to Predict and Control Defects in Ada Software", in "Second
> Annual Oregon Workshop on Software Metrics", Oregon 1990. =A0It then
> concludes that language choice had no impact on fault density
> patterns. =A0Of course, the evidence is only anecdotal.
>
> But the actual cross-language studies I've seen show that most metrics
> one can conceive (such as defect rate, performance, development time,
> even lines of code) vary as much among programmers as among
> programming languages. =A0This is a bit sad because it means that
> language design does not really matter as far as actual results are
> concerned.
>
> Ada subsets may be helpful if your goal is to avoid the last
> (relevant) bug. =A0But that requires matching development practices,
> which are in place for only very few code bases. =A0Certainly, these
> practices aren't magically introduced if you just substitute Ada for C
> or Fortran.

What about McCormack (http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crossTalk/2000/08/
mccormick.html)?

Or Zeiger (Rational) (http://www.adaic.com/whyada/ada-vs-c/
cada_art.html)?

Both quite old now (but so is Hatton's) and they at least have
something more than anecdotes...

Cheers
-- Martin